One reason marriage is a unique relationship is because only the intimate union of one man and one woman can produce a child as a result of that union.

Many activists in support of gay marriage would have us believe that marriage can be redefined and there will be no consequences to society or anyone outside the gay couple who wants to marry. This is not the case in actuality if we look at what has happened in other countries and states.

In Canada, ministers and pastors have been arrested for preaching about their religious views of marriage. Christian business owners have been sued and fined for not participating in gay marriage activities. In Massachusetts, children as young as second grade were taught about gay “marriage” in class and the courts ruled parents had no right to prior notice or to opt their children out of the instruction. Religious charitable groups were told by the government they must accept gay marriage or cease providing their charitable service. That is why Catholic Charities in Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington D.C. were forced to violate their religious convictions or close their adoption service. They closed the service.

If marriage is redefined as other than one man and one woman, it will not exist alongside the current definition of marriage, it will replace it. People who refuse to accept this redefinition will be punished by the law, convicted of hate crimes, and those who believe otherwise will be treated as the legal and moral equivalent of bigots. Refusal to accommodate and recognize same-sex “marriage” would be the equivalent of racial discrimination. If the only criteria for marriage is that you love someone, then why not allow someone to marry their sister, or brother, or allow polygamy. The same reasoning applies and is being used in Canada now with regards to promoting the case for polygamy.

The marriage protection amendment does not change current Minnesota law, it only reinforces it. Passing the amendment ensures that the people of Minnesota, not activist judges or politicians, will decide how our state defines marriage in the future. If you want to preserve traditional marriage, our society, and religious freedoms as we know them, I urge you to vote “yes” on the marriage amendment. And remember, if you do not mark either the “yes” or “no” on your ballot, it will be counted as a “no” vote.